Moore v. Equifax Information Services LLC

• Decision Date: 23 August 2004
• Docket Number: Civ.A. No. 1:03-CV-2378-MHS.
• Citation: 333 F.Supp.2d 1360
• Parties: Terry MOORE, Sr., Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

333 F.Supp.2d 1360

Terry MOORE, Sr., Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, et al., Defendants.

Civ.A. No. 1:03-CV-2378-MHS.

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.

August 23, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Lisa Dionne Wright, Law Office of Lisa D. Wright, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff.

John J. Friedline, Kilpatrick Stockton, Albert J. Decusati, McLain & Merritt, Chad D. Graddy, Karen Smiley Focia, Finley & Buckley, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants.

ORDER

SHOOB, Senior District Judge.

This action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the Court denies plaintiff's motion and grants in part and denies in part defendants' motions.

Background

Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC (Equifax), is a consumer reporting agency that assembles and produces credit reports for use by its clients in evaluating the potential credit risk of consumers. Defendant Marlin Integrated Capital, LLC (Marlin), is an accounts management firm that purchases and attempts to collect debts for businesses. In this action, plaintiff Terry Moore, Sr., seeks to recover from defendants for damages he allegedly suffered as the result of their reporting and including in his credit file a debt that actually belongs to his son, Terry Moore, Jr.

In 1994, Terry Moore, Jr., wrote a check to Jarman Shoes for $64.19 on a closed checking account. Some time later, a report of the bad check appeared in plaintiff's credit file at Equifax. When plaintiff disputed the report, Equifax sought to verify the debt with Marlin, the source of the information. According to Equifax, Marlin responded by verifying the report as accurate.

According to Marlin, it has no account for plaintiff, and it never provided any information to Equifax regarding plaintiff. Instead, Marlin claims that the information it provided to Equifax related to plaintiff's son, Terry Moore, Jr., and that Equifax placed the information in plaintiff's credit file by mistake.

When Equifax sought verification of Marlin's report following plaintiff's complaint, it used a form that identified the debtor simply as "Terry Moore." The other information on the form, including the debtor's address, Social Security number, and date of birth, were those of plaintiff. Marlin responded to the verification request by adding "Junior" to the name on the form and checking boxes indicating that the "Address" and "Prev Name/Prev Gen Code" listed were the same as its records.¹ Marlin also checked a box indicating that the information it had previously provided had been "Verified as Reported." Marlin did not check the boxes next to the debtor's previous address, Social Security number/date of birth, or telephone number, indicating that it had not verified these items of information.

After receiving the completed verification form, Equifax notified plaintiff that it had investigated his complaint and that Marlin had verified the accuracy of the report. Consequently, Equifax declined to remove the bad check report from plaintiff's credit file.

Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit against Equifax and Marlin alleging violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff also asserted a state law claim against Marlin for defamation.

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Equifax sent another verification request to Marlin containing the same information as before. This time Marlin responded by checking the box labeled "Delete Account." Equifax then deleted the bad check report from plaintiff's credit file.

Now before the Court are plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his claims against Equifax, and Equifax's and Marlin's motions for summary judgment on plaintiff's claims against them.

Summary Judgment Standard

Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate when there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact ... and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), the Supreme Court held that this burden could be met if the moving party demonstrates that there is "an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case." Id. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. At that point, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to go beyond the pleadings and present specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

The Court, however, must construe the evidence and all inferences drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. WSB-TV v. Lee, 842 F.2d 1266, 1270 (11th Cir.1988). Moreover, because the summary judgment standard mirrors that required for a judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment is not appropriate unless "under the governing law, there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (citation omitted).

The Rule 56 standard is not affected by the filing of cross motions for summary judgment: "The court must rule on each party's motion on an individual and separate basis, determining, for each side, whether a judgment may be entered in accordance with the Rule 56 standard." 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2720 at 335-36 (3d ed.1998). Cross-motions may, however, be probative of the absence of a factual dispute where they reflect general agreement by the parties as to the controlling legal theories and material facts. See United States v. Oakley, 744 F.2d 1553, 1555 (11th Cir.1984).

Discussion

I. Plaintiff's Claims Against Equifax

Plaintiff asserts two claims against Equifax under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). First, plaintiff seeks recovery under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), which requires consumer reporting agencies like Equifax to use "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information" in their consumer reports. Second, plaintiff seeks recovery under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a), which requires consumer reporting agencies to reinvestigate disputed information and to delete such information if it is inaccurate or cannot be verified.

Plaintiff contends he is entitled to summary judgment as to Equifax's liability on both claims because the evidence establishes that Equifax (1) failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure the accuracy of plaintiff's credit file and (2) failed to fully and adequately investigate the disputed bad check report. Plaintiff contends that, as a result, he had an application for a checking account denied, he was required to pay a higher interest rate for a mortgage loan, he suffered embarrassment and frustration, and he lost time from work. Finally, plaintiff contends that he is entitled to recover punitive damages from Equifax because its conduct was willful.

Equifax contends that it is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claims because there is no evidence that Equifax ever published inaccurate information about plaintiff to a third party, and thus plaintiff cannot establish any damages. Specifically, Equifax argues that (1) the denial of plaintiff's application for a checking account was not based on information supplied by Equifax and, in any event, occurred outside the applicable two-year limitations period and concerned a commercial account to which the FCRA does not apply; (2) there is no evidence that Equifax information was used to increase plaintiff's mortgage interest rate; and (3) plaintiff's claim of emotional distress is not supported by any evidence of an objective manifestation of such distress. Equifax argues that plaintiff's claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a) must also fail because Equifax fulfilled its duty to reinvestigate the disputed bad check report, and the accuracy of the report was verified by Marlin. Finally, Equifax contends that there is no evidence to support plaintiff's claim that Equifax willfully violated the FCRA.

The Court concludes that there are genuine factual issues which preclude summary judgment in favor of either party as to Equifax's liability and as to plaintiff's claims for damages arising from emotional distress and an increased mortgage interest rate. However, the Court further concludes that Equifax is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for punitive damages and for damages arising from denial of his application for a checking account.

First, there is a genuine issue as to whether Equifax failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information in its credit files and whether any such failure was the cause of the inaccurate report in plaintiff's credit file. Although there is no evidence explaining how the bad check report relating to Terry Moore, Jr., became associated with plaintiff's credit file, there is evidence that Equifax did not have reasonable procedures in place to prevent the erroneous assignment of a report to the wrong individual's credit file.² Thus, a factual question remains as to whether it was Equifax's negligence that caused the bad check report to be improperly placed in plaintiff's credit file.

Second, there is a genuine issue as to whether Equifax fully and adequately investigated the disputed bad check report. Equifax did seek verification of the report from Marlin, and Marlin did indicate that the information had been "verified as reported." However, the evidence shows that under Equifax's procedures, if the furnisher of the information verified any two of the items of information listed on the verification form — "Name/Gen Code," "Address," "Prev Name/Prev Gen Code," "Prev Address," "SSN/DOB," and "Telephone Number" — then Equifax would accept the verification as a "complete ID" and would retain the report in the individual's credit file. (Fluellen Dep. at...